Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Blalock v. Blalockgreen2 sentences1998McAllister likewise fails in his contention that the trial court violated the rule announced in Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862, 867 (5) ( 302 SE2d 347 ) (1983), by allowing into evidence two autopsy photographs admitted as State’s Exhibit Nos. 18 and 19. 1991Holmes next contends the trial court violated the rule of Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862, 866-867 ( 302 SE2d 347 ) (1983), by admitting into evidence several pre-autopsy photographs of the victim’s body with wooden tongue depressors inserted into the 18 stab wounds. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Allen Kyode Pacquettegreen2 sentences2016United States v. Pacquette, 557 Fed. 2016See Westbrook, 291 Ga. at 62 (2) (affirming admission of a witness’s entire statement, including its inculpatory portions, when it was relevant to defendant’s self-defense claim); Pacquette, 557 Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Westbrook v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Westbrook, 291 Ga. at 62 (2) (affirming admission of a witness’s entire statement, including its inculpatory portions, when it was relevant to defendant’s self-defense claim); Pacquette, 557 Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Stephens v. Stategreen2 sentences1992We find no merit in appellant’s contention that the trial court violated the rule recently set forth in Stephens v. State, 261 Ga. 467, 468-469 (6) ( 405 SE2d 483 ) (1991), by admitting into evidence as a similar transaction a certified copy of appellant’s prior conviction of aggravated assault. 1992We find no merit in appellant’s contention that the trial court violated the rule recently set forth in Stephens v. State, 261 Ga. 467, 468-469 (6) ( 405 SE2d 483 ) (1991), by admitting into evidence as a similar transaction a certified copy of appellant’s prior conviction of aggravated assault. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences1998McAllister likewise fails in his contention that the trial court violated the rule announced in Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862, 867 (5) ( 302 SE2d 347 ) (1983), by allowing into evidence two autopsy photographs admitted as State’s Exhibit Nos. 18 and 19. 1991Holmes next contends the trial court violated the rule of Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862, 866-867 ( 302 SE2d 347 ) (1983), by admitting into evidence several pre-autopsy photographs of the victim’s body with wooden tongue depressors inserted into the 18 stab wounds. | 2 | 1991–1998 |
Tribble v. State
green
2 sentences1982The court refused because defendant had announced ready in the case and “it was not done prior to the evidence and it was waived and it is too late.” Defendant alleges that the trial court violated the rule of Tribble v. State, 248 Ga. 274 ( 280 SE2d 352 ), which held that a trial court is not required to conduct an in camera inspection requested in a Brady motion, but after the state has responded to the motion if the defendant requests an in camera inspection, the trial court must comply with the request. 1982The court refused because defendant had announced ready in the case and “it was not done prior to the evidence and it was waived and it is too late.” Defendant alleges that the trial court violated the rule of Tribble v. State, 248 Ga. 274 ( 280 SE2d 352 ), which held that a trial court is not required to conduct an in camera inspection requested in a Brady motion, but after the state has responded to the motion if the defendant requests an in camera inspection, the trial court must comply with the request. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.